About the Ethics of Animal Testing Zerbie Hynson The term “animal testing” generally refers to the use of non-humans as test subjects for medicines, to verify their effects before using them on humans. There are some who oppose the notion entirely, on the basis of animal welfare. In this paper it will be argued that, although it should be minimized wherever possible, animal testing is in some cases necessary. The article “Why are animals used in research?”, written by an unknown author for the Laboratory Animal Science Association informs us that “Animals are used in research when there is a need to find out what happens in the whole, living body, which is far more complex than the sum of its parts. It is difficult, and in most cases simply not yet possible, to replace the use of …show more content…
Let’s End the Debate” written for Buzzle, Abhijit Naik argues “[Those who oppose animal testing] … argue that the practice is unnecessary, now that several alternatives to it are readily available. There is no doubt about the fact that animal testing has helped the medical world, but those were the times when these alternatives were not there.” But this paints an incomplete picture; as discussed above, there are alternatives to animal testing, which are used whenever possible due to the cost and red tape associated with animal testing. But they simply do not cut it for some types of work; as discussed above, there are some things only a test upon a living body can find out. Moreover, in the very same article, the author also claims “Around 95 percent of these [animals used in research] are species like guinea pigs, mice, rats, birds, and other coldblooded [sic] creatures.” If Mr. Naik believes that guinea pigs, mice, rats, and birds are all cold-blooded (or that any of them are, for that matter), then it is clear that he has little understanding of the relevant science, and is therefore unqualified to argue as to the facts of the